Is American Science Doomed......

Paul, you are getting alot of praise in our house (in our own little atheist way) for your well reasoned arguements.
Your last comment [quote]From that statement I assume you are a YEC, because only YECs come out with this type of BS. You do not have to lack faith to believe in absolute truths such as the very old age of the universe. The Roman Catholic Church and many protestant sects have no problem with modern scientific theory. This is not a believer vs non believer thing it is specifically about the denial of the blindingly obvious by a group of people who's twisted faith blinds them to the truth and more importantly their determination to indoctrinate others to their cause.
No one who holds such views should be let anywhere near a position of power or influence because they are incapable of rational thought.[/quote] sums it up for me

Paul, you are getting alot of praise in our house (in our own little atheist way) for your well reasoned arguements.

Your last comment Quote:From that statement I assume you are a YEC, because only YECs come out with this type of BS. You do not have to lack faith to believe in absolute truths such as the very old age of the universe. The Roman Catholic Church and many protestant sects have no problem with modern scientific theory. This is not a believer vs non believer thing it is specifically about the denial of the blindingly obvious by a group of people who's twisted faith blinds them to the truth and more importantly their determination to indoctrinate others to their cause.
No one who holds such views should be let anywhere near a position of power or influence because they are incapable of rational thought. sums it up for me

[quote]All the old arguments are here, the atheist/non believer scientifically orientated wanting facts, evidence, truth..as they see it.
From that statement I assume you are a YEC, because only YECs come out with this type of BS. You do not have to lack faith to believe in absolute truths such as the very old age of the universe. The Roman Catholic Church and many protestant sects have no problem with modern scientific theory. This is not a believer vs non believer thing it is specifically about the denial of the blindingly obvious by a group of people who's twisted faith blinds them to the truth and more importantly their determination to indoctrinate others to their cause.
No one who holds such views should be let anywhere near a position of power or influence because they are incapable of rational thought.[/quote]
You can make what assumptions you like, Cambirder, I merely posed a question... I did not expect a vehement response ... a well reasoned answer would have been much more valuable.

Quote:All the old arguments are here, the atheist/non believer scientifically orientated wanting facts, evidence, truth..as they see it.

From that statement I assume you are a YEC, because only YECs come out with this type of BS. You do not have to lack faith to believe in absolute truths such as the very old age of the universe. The Roman Catholic Church and many protestant sects have no problem with modern scientific theory. This is not a believer vs non believer thing it is specifically about the denial of the blindingly obvious by a group of people who's twisted faith blinds them to the truth and more importantly their determination to indoctrinate others to their cause.

No one who holds such views should be let anywhere near a position of power or influence because they are incapable of rational thought.

You can make what assumptions you like, Cambirder, I merely posed a question... I did not expect a vehement response ... a well reasoned answer would have been much more valuable.

[quote]You can make what assumptions you like, Cambirder, I merely posed a question... I did not expect a vehement response ... a well reasoned answer would have been much more valuable.[/quote]
If you choose to use the language and arguments of YECs then what else am I to assume? Sorry if I am wrong but as you don't deny it my assumption still stands.
If you really have an open mind and want some better answers than you are likely to get on a forum such as this I would recommend you read some of the work by [link=http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/]Kenneth Miller [/link]. He is a biologist and Christian (so he has no atheist axe to grind) working at Brown University (a Christian College).
On a separate point I wonder why so many western Christians believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis and so few Jews do when it is after all a Jewish book.

Quote:You can make what assumptions you like, Cambirder, I merely posed a question... I did not expect a vehement response ... a well reasoned answer would have been much more valuable.

If you choose to use the language and arguments of YECs then what else am I to assume? Sorry if I am wrong but as you don't deny it my assumption still stands.

If you really have an open mind and want some better answers than you are likely to get on a forum such as this I would recommend you read some of the work by Kenneth Miller . He is a biologist and Christian (so he has no atheist axe to grind) working at Brown University (a Christian College).

On a separate point I wonder why so many western Christians believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis and so few Jews do when it is after all a Jewish book.

[quote]But is truth something set in stone, or is it what an individual believes until he or she becomes convinced that something else is the true fact ? Why do the scientifically minded demand scientific proof of God's existence [/quote]
Truth is what is reality and correct regardless of what anyone believes. It is set in stone. The scientifically minded will demand proof of a God to accept its existence. That's how science works. You demonstrate something is true with evidence and then you accept that fact. It's really not a difficult concept.

Quote:But is truth something set in stone, or is it what an individual believes until he or she becomes convinced that something else is the true fact ? Why do the scientifically minded demand scientific proof of God's existence

Truth is what is reality and correct regardless of what anyone believes. It is set in stone. The scientifically minded will demand proof of a God to accept its existence. That's how science works. You demonstrate something is true with evidence and then you accept that fact. It's really not a difficult concept.

[quote]The scientifically minded will demand proof of a God to accept its existence.[/quote]
That not really true, there are many scientists who have faith, and faith does not demand proof. Whether gods exist or not is not really relevant to scientific research. Science also has no real reason to be in conflict with religion until certain believers go out to attack science by concocting such pseudo-science as creation science and flood geology and trying to get such nonsense taught in school science class.
YECs would be laughable if only they did not have such a large influence in the most powerful nation on Earth, which is why so many of us on this side of the pond are worried about being lumbered with another Republican administration in the White House.

Quote:The scientifically minded will demand proof of a God to accept its existence.

That not really true, there are many scientists who have faith, and faith does not demand proof. Whether gods exist or not is not really relevant to scientific research. Science also has no real reason to be in conflict with religion until certain believers go out to attack science by concocting such pseudo-science as creation science and flood geology and trying to get such nonsense taught in school science class.

YECs would be laughable if only they did not have such a large influence in the most powerful nation on Earth, which is why so many of us on this side of the pond are worried about being lumbered with another Republican administration in the White House.

[b]400 years ago the Witchfinder General would say "The scientifically minded will demand proof that this woman is a witch before I burn her at the stake".[/b]
I'd rather be scientifically minded than trust things to superstition and dozens of religions who can't even agree who their god is or how to worship him. Your blind faith is no different to theirs.
Science and evidence every time for me Bill.

400 years ago the Witchfinder General would say "The scientifically minded will demand proof that this woman is a witch before I burn her at the stake".

I'd rather be scientifically minded than trust things to superstition and dozens of religions who can't even agree who their god is or how to worship him. Your blind faith is no different to theirs.

[quote]Billee where did Noah keep the whales on his ark?[/quote] I guess they had plenty of water to swim in..... It doesn't say anywhere that marine creatures were actually ON the Ark.
The Ark by the way was quite a size... Bigger than anything until the large Ocean Liners started to be built in the late 19th Century
Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the Ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah’s Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood." Quote from here ... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

Quote:Billee where did Noah keep the whales on his ark? I guess they had plenty of water to swim in..... It doesn't say anywhere that marine creatures were actually ON the Ark.

The Ark by the way was quite a size... Bigger than anything until the large Ocean Liners started to be built in the late 19th Century

Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the Ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah’s Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood." Quote from here ... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

Billee do you honestly believe that. Honestly and seriously is the fable of the Ark more plausible than evolution. And how did he manage to get in all the sub variations, I mean you know about the genetic variations (that prove evolution) so he got all of them in, and he travelled the world to pick up all the different specimens so off to the frozen poles to get polar bears and he collected all the insects including al the variations of fruit flies (that handily demonstrate evolution in human observable life spans).
All those things because of a Jealous god that threw a tantrum. Are naturally occurring floods (like we see in every day life) and the changing of the earth as we understand it not more plausible that that tale. Seriously I have not met a Christian that thought Genesis was anything more than foke lore.
You are aware of Atrahasis are you not. Go check up on his story, from an older religion featuring a similar but more plausible explanation of a local flood. Its easy to blend it into the Ark and fits more into the earlier "other Gods" version of the world where natural disasters were described as being due to rages of the gods who lorded it over men. If you look into it you soon find many parallel versions of Genesis as part of the old oral traditions of those regions. Just the Gods are different.

Billee do you honestly believe that. Honestly and seriously is the fable of the Ark more plausible than evolution. And how did he manage to get in all the sub variations, I mean you know about the genetic variations (that prove evolution) so he got all of them in, and he travelled the world to pick up all the different specimens so off to the frozen poles to get polar bears and he collected all the insects including al the variations of fruit flies (that handily demonstrate evolution in human observable life spans).

All those things because of a Jealous god that threw a tantrum. Are naturally occurring floods (like we see in every day life) and the changing of the earth as we understand it not more plausible that that tale. Seriously I have not met a Christian that thought Genesis was anything more than foke lore.

You are aware of Atrahasis are you not. Go check up on his story, from an older religion featuring a similar but more plausible explanation of a local flood. Its easy to blend it into the Ark and fits more into the earlier "other Gods" version of the world where natural disasters were described as being due to rages of the gods who lorded it over men. If you look into it you soon find many parallel versions of Genesis as part of the old oral traditions of those regions. Just the Gods are different.

[quote]The Ark by the way was quite a size... Bigger than anything until the large Ocean Liners started to be built in the late 19th Century[/quote]
Noah must have been a really good ship builder huh? It's bonkers Billlee

Quote:The Ark by the way was quite a size... Bigger than anything until the large Ocean Liners started to be built in the late 19th Century

Noah must have been a really good ship builder huh? It's bonkers Billlee

Oh and check out the descriptions of the wood and pitch and you will see they are Babylon not Hebrew words. Atrahasis was from Babylon....
Having said that if you thought the ark article was struggling to hold water [link=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/ten-best-evidences?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=10-evidences-campaign]this one struggles even more. [/link]
I have no problem with Christianity and its code of conduct, but when people start to distort facts in order to match a "belie set. then I have a problem. And as a Christian how do you relate the angry, war like and Jealous god of the old testament to the one in the new testament. that God can behave so differently left me concerned.

Oh and check out the descriptions of the wood and pitch and you will see they are Babylon not Hebrew words. Atrahasis was from Babylon....

I have no problem with Christianity and its code of conduct, but when people start to distort facts in order to match a "belie set. then I have a problem. And as a Christian how do you relate the angry, war like and Jealous god of the old testament to the one in the new testament. that God can behave so differently left me concerned.

Oh and [link=http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/10907/Day_One.pdf]here is a more enlightened approach to the issue of Genesis[/link] by Christians. Cleverly they do not try and run against the knowledge we have, rather they pitch god into the heart of the creation and accept the world as it is understood. Creationism undermines Christianity by making it too easy to pick holes. And if you have an incorrect assertion that can fairly easily be shown to be wrong how can you defend the rest? Honest throw off the shackles and explore your faith.
Genesis also give a model of the world we know is wrong, do you think the earth is flat for example? You will not save Christianity by dragging the world back into the dark ages, just as fundamentalists of other faiths will not stay in power forever.
[quote]The story of the universe is being explored in ever closer detail in our time, yet the more science tells us about how we came to be here the more marvellous and mysterious and beautiful it becomes.
Instead of undermining the Biblical story of creation; it enhances it. The mystery and beauty of the creation of the universe becomes all the more spellbinding as the
work of astronomers, physicists, cosmologists and others explore the universe and its origins.[/quote]

Oh and here is a more enlightened approach to the issue of Genesis by Christians. Cleverly they do not try and run against the knowledge we have, rather they pitch god into the heart of the creation and accept the world as it is understood. Creationism undermines Christianity by making it too easy to pick holes. And if you have an incorrect assertion that can fairly easily be shown to be wrong how can you defend the rest? Honest throw off the shackles and explore your faith.

Genesis also give a model of the world we know is wrong, do you think the earth is flat for example? You will not save Christianity by dragging the world back into the dark ages, just as fundamentalists of other faiths will not stay in power forever.

Quote:The story of the universe is being explored in ever closer detail in our time, yet the more science tells us about how we came to be here the more marvellous and mysterious and beautiful it becomes.

Instead of undermining the Biblical story of creation; it enhances it. The mystery and beauty of the creation of the universe becomes all the more spellbinding as the
work of astronomers, physicists, cosmologists and others explore the universe and its origins.

Billie you really need to start to think for yourself and stop swallowing the nonsense that con men like Ken Ham spout.
This quote is from the link you posted.
[quote]Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark.[/quote]
So what these guys are saying is that only one sort of wild dog was taken aboard the ark and not every species we see today. The implication of that logic is that evolution had to occur at a stupendous rate immediately after the flood which is a bit odd because the one thing these guys don't believe in is evolution.
They also say that aquatic animals would survive outside the ark so lets have a bit of a think about that. We go from a world where we have nice clean rivers lakes and oceans to one where we have one big ocean full of suspended sediment. Every living thing in it would have seen a change in salinity and temperature that would have been enough to see the extinction of most species, photosynthesis would be impossible below couple of inches so marine plants would die off very quickly (100% of land plants would of cause go extinct). Filter feeders would die from the high concentrations of silt in the water so the bottom of the food chain would collapse, and about the only thing that might survive would be a few species of eels and worms living of all the dead stuff at the bottom of the ocean.
So what happens when the waters recede and Noah lets the animals he has some how kept alive for a year off his boat. None of the herbivores have a food source so they can't eat, although that does not matter too much because they are the only food source available for the carnivores and so are all consumed within hours of stepping off the boat. Now the carnivores have nothing to eat because the cant get at the slimy things living in the depths of the sea so after eating Noah and his family they die of starvation, leaving the planet to be repopulated by eels and worms.
Had you ever considered that some exaggeration as to the extent of this flood may have gotten into this story? maybe the fact that the dove came back with an olive branch should give you a clue as to why it was more in the way of a little local difficulty than a global event!

Billie you really need to start to think for yourself and stop swallowing the nonsense that con men like Ken Ham spout.

This quote is from the link you posted.

Quote:Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word “specie” is not equivalent to the “created kinds” of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark.

So what these guys are saying is that only one sort of wild dog was taken aboard the ark and not every species we see today. The implication of that logic is that evolution had to occur at a stupendous rate immediately after the flood which is a bit odd because the one thing these guys don't believe in is evolution.

They also say that aquatic animals would survive outside the ark so lets have a bit of a think about that. We go from a world where we have nice clean rivers lakes and oceans to one where we have one big ocean full of suspended sediment. Every living thing in it would have seen a change in salinity and temperature that would have been enough to see the extinction of most species, photosynthesis would be impossible below couple of inches so marine plants would die off very quickly (100% of land plants would of cause go extinct). Filter feeders would die from the high concentrations of silt in the water so the bottom of the food chain would collapse, and about the only thing that might survive would be a few species of eels and worms living of all the dead stuff at the bottom of the ocean.

So what happens when the waters recede and Noah lets the animals he has some how kept alive for a year off his boat. None of the herbivores have a food source so they can't eat, although that does not matter too much because they are the only food source available for the carnivores and so are all consumed within hours of stepping off the boat. Now the carnivores have nothing to eat because the cant get at the slimy things living in the depths of the sea so after eating Noah and his family they die of starvation, leaving the planet to be repopulated by eels and worms.

Had you ever considered that some exaggeration as to the extent of this flood may have gotten into this story? maybe the fact that the dove came back with an olive branch should give you a clue as to why it was more in the way of a little local difficulty than a global event!

I just noticed on Billie's link that they also mention dinosaurs being on the ark, I really don't know how anyone can be taking in by these guys when they not only insist the ark was big enough to save all our modern species but apparently ****ing great extinct dinosaurs were on it as well!
Wake up Billie, you are living in a world of serious delusions and you need to get real.

I just noticed on Billie's link that they also mention dinosaurs being on the ark, I really don't know how anyone can be taking in by these guys when they not only insist the ark was big enough to save all our modern species but apparently ****ing great extinct dinosaurs were on it as well!

Wake up Billie, you are living in a world of serious delusions and you need to get real.

[quote]BTW I spent the first 68 years of my life as a scientific atheist.... so I know all the arguments, I now know in my heart that God is real.[/quote]
Hi Bill. :) There are of course those who will say that [u]both[/u] stances are preposterous. What is a "scientific atheist"? One who has [b]proved[/b] by scientific means that there is no god? An impossibility, surely?
Oh, and you cannot know anything in your 'heart': it's 100% in the chemical and electrical processes of your brain - even a 'gut feeling' originates in your brain - but may well affect your gut! Your brain can undergo changes and so changes of viewpoint are nothing unusual or magical.
Using the Drake Equation and other methods of estimation, some scientists have come up with a figure of 10-11k planets with [i]intelligent[/i] life, just in our Milky Way galaxy and an unimaginable number in the universe as a whole. Even if that's a gross overestimate and there are just a handful, doesn't that kinda blow the "humans are a special creation" thing out of the water? Some of the other civilisations just in our galaxy will, by the laws of averages and logic, likely be very much more evolved/advanced than us, and might regard us much as we would regard a dog or cat.
There are questions to which we may never find an answer, quite possibly because we are insufficiently evolved to formulate the right questions. There is never any shame in simply saying.............. we don't know. :)

Quote:BTW I spent the first 68 years of my life as a scientific atheist.... so I know all the arguments, I now know in my heart that God is real.

Hi Bill. There are of course those who will say that both stances are preposterous. What is a "scientific atheist"? One who has proved by scientific means that there is no god? An impossibility, surely?

Oh, and you cannot know anything in your 'heart': it's 100% in the chemical and electrical processes of your brain - even a 'gut feeling' originates in your brain - but may well affect your gut! Your brain can undergo changes and so changes of viewpoint are nothing unusual or magical.

Using the Drake Equation and other methods of estimation, some scientists have come up with a figure of 10-11k planets with intelligent life, just in our Milky Way galaxy and an unimaginable number in the universe as a whole. Even if that's a gross overestimate and there are just a handful, doesn't that kinda blow the "humans are a special creation" thing out of the water? Some of the other civilisations just in our galaxy will, by the laws of averages and logic, likely be very much more evolved/advanced than us, and might regard us much as we would regard a dog or cat.

There are questions to which we may never find an answer, quite possibly because we are insufficiently evolved to formulate the right questions. There is never any shame in simply saying.............. we don't know.